What one Add Books improvement would help you most?

I vaguely remember hearing that there's an Add Books redo coming soon. I thought it would be interesting to see what improvements people would personally benefit from. Basically, there are all sorts of things that seem like they should be done in a general sense--making it easier to add multiple series books, and re-enabling the green plus, and so on--but I realized that those things won't actually make much difference to my own experience with the site.

So, what one Add Books improvement would have the most positive impact on your actual site use?

For me, it would be the addition of Date Acquired to the quick edit.

I think fixing the green and pink pluses would make the most difference to me, because Add Books as is works well.

Adding things to Quick Edit wouldn't help because I change too many things - you'd have to pretty well shovel the Edit Books page into there, and it's quicker and easier to go to Your Books and make the changes there, on a whole batch of entered books at once, for me.

I'm not even sure what I mean by 'fix green and pink pluses' - at a minimum, search by title, author instead of just title. Better - search by ISBN (though we'd have to have something of an editions layer, at least for the green plus, to make that work). Adding generic editions for both of them would be better yet - but then you'd need to have some way to update or draw in publishing info... I use brightcopy's script a lot, though that requires going to a book page rather than a work one (which means navigating through some particular user).

I don't use the pluses often (even through brightcopy's script) - actually, I use them most with ER books and occasionally with books mentioned elsewhere in Talk (follow the touchstone and eventually add the book). But that's a small fraction of my book-adding. Still, it's the biggest annoyance I run into with book-adding on a regular basis...

Oh, one thing I expect to see and will be delighted to see, though it's not something that bothers me on a regular basis - a way to rearrange my source list that doesn't require deleting them all and re-adding in the right order.

I'd like to see Add Books go to a Generic Work Level -- without isbn, publisher, cover and other details -- so that the adders who don't care which edition they're addding, and just want to get the work in their catalogues, are not led to accept whatever trashy data they happen to bring up. Those who care which editions they are adding can make one more click to answer the question "Choose a Specific Edition?" which will then offer them specific edtions from their favored sources, just as Add Books does now. This should solve the Green and Pink Plus problem?

>2 jjmcgaffey: Yes, I think the one thing I'd like to see changed is more convenient managing and editing of my list of sources.

Personally, I think Add Books should pull from LibraryThing data by default instead of an outside source (with the option to pull from outside sources if you're not satisfied with the LT results).

Also/or:
Generic editions

Being able to reorder sources.

Allowing us to specify a cascading order of sources to try: "Search Overcat, then LoC if there are zero results, then NYPL..." rather than needing to repeat the search on a different source ourselves manually.

For the pluses, which I think of as being not quite the same thing as Add Books though they're clearly related, I'd have it replace colons with commas in the search (colons fail on many sources) and add the author's last name, rather than just searching for the exact title string as it does now.

Generic editions would be fine as an addition, but not as a default as Crypto-Willobie suggests in #3. Having a checkbox or radio button would be fine.

Generic editions and the ability to customize the fields that appear in quick edit.

ETA: And I'll agree with cascading sources.

Cascading sources yes! (reorderable of course...)

The reason I think that Generic Edition should be the first choice presented (or default), is that the people who don't care and would accept trashy data will not be any more likely to make the right choice (generic or otherwise) from among various options in a checkbox. If they were, we wouldn't have the trashy data problem. We want to offer them the 'harmless' option as their first, unthinking, choice. For others, a single click or check or whatever would take them to real catlogue sources.

Being able to use data from other LT users catalogs (without having to use brightcopy's script)

Followed by (in no particular order)

- generic work entries
- fixing the intermittent bug where Overcat doesn't return results on the first try
- allowing Overcat as a default choice when using the add button on the work record

9>

Would having a single checkbox, remembering your choice, that was ticked by default satisfy you? That way the people who don't care could get generics, but those of us who do wouldn't have to tell it EVERY SINGLE TIME - we could untick the box once and be done with it. It's the extra step every time that makes me dig in my heels here.

>11 by lorax, Yes!! Definitely would need to be remembered. Otherwise it'd be irritating to suddenly need to make that extra tick/untick, every. single. time.! (Of course, since most of us want the data, I'd think that should be the default, and those who want generic could make the extra click! ;))

Well, I'm willing to tick it once. But indeed - then be done with it.

Cascading sources.

what #'s 11 & 12 said.

Cascading sources would be nice. Also a better way to rearrange sources.

I can totes get behind the idea of cascading sources. Even though I'll never use it.

Generic editions would be fantastic, but is a pretty significant step.

Top for me: rearranging sources. It's a small thing, but the one thing that most frustrates me when I'm trying to add books. Otherwise it generally works fine for me as it is.

followed closely by: ability to toggle specific books as private/public when adding them.

Top for the site -- it's a tie between:

-- improving the "add to library" and "add to wishlist" buttons. Those buttons should (a), at the back-end/coding level, search ISBNs where available, not titles, and (b), at the front-end/user-experience level, provide a simple interface to allow people to select specific editions or enter other manual info as they wish. Here's my specific suggestion for how to do this, via a lightbox: http://www.librarything.com/topic/78354 (I say top for the site, because I don't really use these buttons, though I might occasionally use "add to wishlist" if it worked better.)

and

-- adding a "format" field to the add books process, so that the process could automatically distinguish format where possible and also could allow the user to specify format right away.

Also, more and more I think implementing that "ratty data marker" idea is a vital preliminary to any major add books overhaul.

Not to open a debate that's been well covered elsewhere, but I don't think generic editions are a good idea (because of combining/separating ambiguities: we already have too many same-title works that aren't the same work -- e.g. movies with books, music scores with music recordings -- and I fear generic editions would just compound that problem). I could perhaps warm to the idea if there were a way of specifying clearly *that* an entry was a generic work, *and* what format it was (book vs movie, etc.), *and* that it wasn't abridged or an adaptation, etc.

Cascading sources sounds like a nice idea.

I would LOVE an edition layer that would help me identify features of books so I could make a decision on which to buy.

For example forwards and afterwards by other authors, helping to expand on the book itself.
maps
charts
photographs
illustrations
cover artists
commentary
study guide

the features could be endless and maybe that's what makes it so daunting, but darn it, I'd love to have a go. Right now I sort of fall into the editions I own and love, like my edition of Frankenstein with a forward by my beloved Patrick McGrath and woodcut illustrations by Lynd Ward. If I could explore editions with rich feature notations, I'd have known this existed and sought it out instead of having to stumble on it. Oh how many others have I missed?

I've taken some time to complete some of this info for some of my books, but without any way to actually use the info, I stopped.

1. Reordering the sources

2. Make the green plus search on author surname, title

3. Generic work entries easily done (I want these for wish-list items, or for books I remember reading but don't actually have the book to check the details).

< 9, 11, 12
Well, I personally don't need to be 'satisfied' in regard to the specifics of the generic level. I won't use it myself as I'm picky about biliographical details and will always want real sources. Just thinking of the lowest common cataloguing denominator. I think I didn't quite understand about the checkbox you suggested. If someone does nothing, they get the generic level? but if someone checks 'Real Sources" that will stick and they'll always go right to real sources unless they go back and unclick it?

Multiple-sources automatic search based on the order in my preferences if no results are found in the primary one - instead of sending me to search in another source myself... That's the only thing that really bugs me on the Add Books page...

22, 21> For books I actually have, I definitely want the correct info on them (I'll correct publisher data etc, if the best source available doesn't have my exact edition). However, like staffordcastle, for wishlist books or books I read but no longer have any idea what edition it was, I'd prefer to have a generic edition over a specific and likely wrong edition. I've done some where I've deliberately removed publisher data because it probably wasn't right for the book I actually read...but that's a pain, it would be easier if I could add it that way straight from the start.

3. Generic work entries easily done (I want these for wish-list items, or for books I remember reading but don't actually have the book to check the details).

Also agreed with this. That's the only time I want generic. And is part of the reason I don't really do "wishlist" here (and only add books currently on my shelves, not anything I read earlier on, even when I own them back in the US) because I don't want to add specific versions, just generic work. So for the meantime, I keep my overflowing wishlist + ratings of older books on GR.

beyond scope, I fear, but one thing I would like is "plug in my Kindle, select kindle-collection 'Fiction-Read', tag 'inbox for review', select overcat->amazonUK, go"...

22>

Well, you seemed to feel very strongly that generic editions should be provided unless people took specific action to prevent it. I was asking whether having this specific action be a one-time thing would achieve this goal of yours, or whether those of us who do not want generic editions would be required to take that specific action every time we added a book. It seems to me that if you also want real sources you should "need to be satisfied" about this - do you want a situation where, if you forget one time, you end up with a generic edition? Because that's what you seemed to be asking for in your original post.

It's interesting to see which things bug people the most (green pluses not working etc.). I don't mind those or any of the more "fancy" requests (although by no means am I against those requests either!!). I feel my "most wanted" list is very insignificant and "un-fancy" by comparison: I would sooooo settle for the ability to rearrange sources...

(didn't that sort of try to work at some point...?)

I feel my "most wanted" list is very insignificant and "un-fancy" by comparison: I would sooooo settle for the ability to rearrange sources...

This is exactly why I started this thread! I thought it would be helpful to look at the overall picture of what everyone actually wants, because discussions often end up focusing only on the major (and sometimes more controversial) changes.

Quite some time ago, there was a discussion with Tim about having the ability to select whether your titles would automatically be entered in your catalogue using title case or sentence case. I think it was around the time Overcat came out. I would like to have this.

I donʻt add a terrific number
of non-English books, but
improvement of the "Language", "Original Language" menus would
be quite a help. In such a
Euro-centric listing, itʻs amazing that Polish isnʻt on the menu.
Others I would like to see get a permanent place on the language Menu are:
Hawaiian Tahitian

Maori Tongan

They're there, just not in the short-list. Try "all languages".

Oh, Title Case is high on my list!

I would also like to rearrange sources, and to have generic editions for books that I know I read, but do not own.

". . .Try ʻall languagesʻ " (32)

Thanks, Matt.
("All Languages", however, doesnʻt appear on my "ADD" page, or any of the pages that I regularly look at. What Iʻm getting is
an alphabetic list of 22 languages, ending with "Welsh", and preceded by "blank".
I have seen* a (to me) adequate looking much longer list. It comes only
in menus that include
the option "Language not
Specified" --or some phrase to that effect.

*Iʻve only seen this on two
book-entries, and Iʻve forgotten the titles. And I
wouldnʻtknow how to activate it on an entry of my own.

Huh. I came to this thread to see what people were suggesting, because I couldn't think of any changes. And then I realized that I've been using the Manual Add page (where I fill in all the details from scratch myself, every time) for...oh, gosh, years now. I haven't used the Add Books page since Feb. 2010 other than 3 times - in early 2010 for wishlist (twice) and I think one Overcat test, but I'm not positive. That may have just been laziness.

I don't remember the exact circumstances for why I switched, but part of it was definitely dissatisfaction with always having to go in and edit the titles/authors to be the way I wanted them, and then leaving behind potentially bad 0-copies (back before some useful changes to the combining/editions pages). Along with some of the other things that required changing or editing, it just made more sense to fill it in by hand the first time, top to bottom.

Plus, I could leave fields blank if I wanted in the case of generic I-don't-have-a-copy-on-hand-yet, or books I read ages ago and have discarded long since.

So with all this in mind, my top request is the generic title/author only edition. The second is a way to preview/edit the information that's going into the fields, like a view of the Manual Add (addnew.php!) with the fields already filled in with the source information, so that I can edit/change/add before it saves the first time.

> 34: It's in "Edit your book", plus it's immediately available when you use manual entry (which I happen to use a lot - maybe that's why I'm not sufficiently aware of the problem).

Yes, I guess it would make sense to have it more easily available in "add book" mode.

I'm very satisfied with "Add Books" as it is, really. But 3 small changes would make it even better:

1. Move "Add Manually" to top of page.
2. Set Role of Author field to "Author" by default.
3. Function for sorting sources.

37> Yes to all three.

Those three, and options for setting the case of the title (I'd forgotten about that, though I have to make the change every time I add a book).

2. Set Role of Author field to "Author" by default.

...and I would have immediately under, "other authors"

Yes to:
*the ability to sort posts by ascending or descending...annoying to have to the scroll to the bottom to read the latest post(not last unread)
*Ability to include book icon with review in member giveaways and to post on personal blogs
*after the batch is gone-how to do we access those pics?
* On early reviewers page-on right bar info...include the total number of books in listing (how many books do I have to scroll through???) and the ability to possibly jump into say the middle of the listing
* On early reviewers page-separate books into adult/teen/children books-easier to hunt for books that you'd like to review that way
* have authors in member give-away choose general description of their book category -adult/teen/child, etc. They can choose the label!
* in add books>add to collections: the ability to rearrange this list and not to have a default listing checked all the time
* on homepage (think new user and blank slate) at top- a tab for how do I?
up there!!! Very important-site is robust, but this would help newbies to get the hang of things quicker, rather than hunt for how to do things
*on home page-tab at top for quick link for our books we have reviewed-nice not to have to go to other review page for a quick reference

GRACIOUS thanks for asking for member input-that's another thing that makes this site so wonderful and responsive!
We love our programers, oh, yes...we do-oooooh......

and yes to all of the above suggestions!

oh...and one more thing...

some color? eye candy? ability to customize our homepage

and I want a pony....and a shotcrete house...and a, and a.......

41>

This question was specifically about ADD BOOKS. Not to say your other suggestions don't have merit, just that they'd be better off in their own threads rather than shoehorned into this one.

42>

You're aware that (1) nobody else can see your homepage, (2), your homepage is highly customizable, and (3) your profile page, which others can see, is also highly customizable?

44>

I'm not going to argue the subjective interpretations of "highly", but the poster I was responding to may not have known that the homepage and profile page are both customizable.

With regard to customizing the color scheme of your home page, do you mean something for everyone's view or just your computer? If the latter, there are plugins to many browsers that would let you define CSS (cascading style sheets) for particular web pages. I don't know if these programs have settings for just one machine or if they have a plan for a central storage and any computer that is logged in to the CSS server account with a suitable plugin can use it.

James

lorax

correct...not trying to highjack thread...new user with some learning to do, apparently...thanks for the clarifications

Generic editions would be my number one.

Bumping http://www.librarything.com/topic/93378

> 49: I hear you, and "various" is indeed atrocious. But you have to be aware that "rules" about how to attribute authorship are not the same everywhere.

Personally I deeply resent the usage of attributing books about artists to those artists. No matter how many reproductions of their works are in them - if they didn't create the actual books they're not the authors. But apparently the practice is according to official American cataloguing "rules" - official nincompoops?

Various should be used as little as possible. That's not the same as "never", and doesn't warrant official insults.

What would you propose the correct author for the Bible should be, for someone who doesn't believe it was divinely dictated? It was written by a number of people, many of whom are unknown, over the course of centuries. Editing, in the sense of selecting the documents to include in the anthology, was also done by committees, and I don't know if the names of the participants are known. Listing translators as authors is factually wrong, not just unhelpful as "Various" is, and those too were usually done by committee. Listing the publisher as the author means that even the identical translation would be a shattered mess as one publisher's KJV is dissociated from another's. "Various" is really the best of a bunch of non-ideal options here.

Various is a mess largely because it's overused, not because it's intrinsically evil. Though I suspect you're going to call me stupid and/or lazy (or perhaps a nincompoop this time) as you have done before, for crediting a single volume in my library to "Various".

But do you really think most 'various' books are manually entered? Try looking at the various author page on Amazon!

55: No thanks.

Is Amazon still the top option presented to new members? I'd rather see Amazon demoted in favor of Overcat and the Library of Congress.

57>

Unfortunately, yes. And Tim's pretty inflexible on this matter. I think the "cascading sources" I suggested above could be a way around this; have the default for newcomers be something like "Overcat, LoC, Amazon" so that they'll get good data when available but get Amazon without having to do a second search.

Edited for typo

>58 by lorax>, Is that not related to to Amazon's demands? I wasn't actively on LT at the time they changed things up with their new demands for anyone who wanted to still use their data, but it seemed to me like that went hand in hand. If it's not related, then YES, pleeeeease stop pimping them so hard!! lol

If you want to catalog current/upcoming sci-fi/fantasy (as I do) Overcat and LoC are next to worthless. Cascading sources would be helpful, otherwise it's Amazon all the way for me.

60>

That's not genre-specific as far as I know; libraries, especially academic libraries, don't enter books as far in advance of publication as Amazon does. It's the one area where I do find myself having to use Amazon.

51>Personally I deeply resent the usage of attributing books about artists to those artists. No matter how many reproductions of their works are in them - if they didn't create the actual books they're not the authors. But apparently the practice is according to official American cataloguing "rules" - official nincompoops?

I think I have seen you post this same sentiment previously/elsewhere. Just curious, can you provide some examples (and source) of this type of cataloging? I have a fair number of books on science fiction, pulp, pin-up and general paperback cover artists and I have not seen the type of author attribution you are talking about. Not to say it doesn't happen, I just haven't noticed it. In cataloging my books, I use LOC records when available, academic or public library records if need be. I'm also quite happy to do original cataloging and enter the record manually. Anyway, I don't see what you describe as a cataloging trend here in the US. Why do you think the practice is according to official American cataloging rules? Source?

I echo bientrey. I was a school librarian for over 30 years and never cataloged a book in that fashion. Subject heading: yes, of course. Maybe that's where the confusion is...mistaking an author card (or entry) with a subject card (or entry).

Needless to add, I have typed hundreds of catalog cards in my day. Yes, I am that old.

62-63: There's an AACR2 rule that if more than 50% of an work is pictures by one artist, the artist should be the main entry. Don't know what RDA says.

No, actually, if you search for a book of, say, prints of Degas paintings here on LT, you're very likely to see the author listed as Degas.

When I went to my local library's site and plugged in "Degas" and "Author name", I got the following record:

Title:
Degas's : Dancers at the barre : point and counterpoint / Eliza Rathbone, Elizabeth Steele ; essays by Shelley Sturman and Daphne Barbour ; interview with Christopher Wheeldon by Robert Greskovic.

Other Title Variation :
Dancers at the barre

Corporate Author:
Phillips Collection.

Call Number:
759.4 DEGAS

ISBN:
0300176325 (hardcover : alk. paper)
9780300176322 (hardcover : alk. paper)

Publication Information :
Washington, DC : Phillips Collection ; New Haven Conn. : Distributed byYale University Press, 2011.

...Obviously, there's a Corporate Author and whatnot, but I specifically chose "Author" as my search modifier, so surely he must be listed as an author somewhere on that entry? Further down the page, I get an entry for http://www.librarything.com/work/12165912 -

Title:
Edgar Degas.

Personal Author:
Degas, Edgar, 1834-1917.

Call Number:
759.4 EDGAR

ISBN:
184013660X (hc)
9781840136609

Publication Information :
London : Grange Books, 2004.

Physical Description:
80 p. : col. ill. ; 25 cm.

General Note:
Includes list of illustrations.

Personal Subject:
Degas, Edgar, 1834-1917.

--------

Also this one: http://www.librarything.com/work/1558287

Title:
Degas drawings of dancers / Edgar Degas.

Personal Author:
Degas, Edgar, 1834-1917.

Call Number:
741.944 D317d

ISBN:
0486406989 (pbk.)

Publication Information :
Mineola, NY : Dover Publications, c1999.

Physical Description:
44 p. : chiefly ill. ; 28 cm.

Personal Subject:
Degas, Edgar, 1834-1917.

--------

And then:
Degas pastels / introduction and commentaries by Jean Sutherland Boggs and Anne Maheux.
Degas, Edgar, 1834-1917. " from 1992.

--------

Also:
Degas : the complete etchings, lithographs and monotypes / Jean Adhémar and Françoise Cachin ; foreword by John Rewald ; translated by Jane Brenton.
Degas, Edgar, 1834-1917. from 1974

There's a lot of absolute nonsense that got picked up, too. You can try yourself at http://jpl.coj.net

But this is a library in the US and there are at least 3 works about Degas and his art that are listed with Degas as the author, despite him very definitely not having authored the books. So maybe bientrey and MerryMary didn't do this, but it doesn't seem to be uncommon at all. I get very similar results, if not more immediately obviously what BarkingMatt was talking about, with a search for "Monet, Claude" and the "author name" limiter.

>62 bientrey: Here's one for bientrey:

Legacy: Selected Paintings and Drawings by the Grand Master of Fantastic Art, Frank Frazetta

According to WorldCat, this is by Frank Frazetta, Arnie Penner and Cathy Penner. I suspect that Frank had nothing to do with the writing of the book; if he did, it's awfully conceited to call himself "the Grand Master of Fantastic Art"! (Even if he was, which I am not contradicting at all.)

62-66: Repeating myself in less technical language.

Yes, if is part of the former cataloging rules for American, Canadian and British libraries to list as the main author an artist whose work primarily represented in a book. I don't know what the current rules are. Since many people here in LT are deriving their records from American or British library sources, it's likely that the artist will show up as the default author. If the book has a clear author or editor those should be listed as secondary authors on the catalog record and should show up in other authors in your catalog record.

I'm not advocating that this is "correct," merely saying that it was the rule for a long time and will show up here on LT.

I would like to be warned when I'm about to add a book already in my library, and be given the choice of whether or not to proceed. As an added bonus, I'd like to be able to view the book in my collection before I make that decision.

68 > That's been asked for many times. The gist of the answers has been that there is no way to do it.

1. Reordering sources.

2. Move "Add manually" to the top of the page.

3. When you add books manually, you should be able to choose, which units you use by default.

Generic Work Level would be nice for wishlist entries.

A more up-to-date, and more comprehensive, menu of languages under
"Primary Language", "Original Language", and "Secondary Language".

I do know about the menu supplied by gangleri. I have come across it two or three times -- merely by accident, where it happened to be given in place of the usual menus. It lacks nothing that I can think of, and even has some languages that I had never before heard of But, come to think of it, I wouldn't know how to access it, if I were in "ADD BOOKS" feature.

71: Do you know how to access the more complete list that LT provides? If so, what languages is it missing that you need? (It seems to have most of the MARC language list with a few additions like Klingon -- I'm not sure LT is up-to-date with the latest MARC changes, but then neither is the library I used to work at.)

Q. "Do you know how to access the more complete list that LT provides?" (72)

No. How?

Q.". . .what languages is it missing?

A. Probably none that I know of. And does have some that I didn't know of. But I've seen it only by accident (SEE: 71). I should have remembered the titles of the books that did
evoke it (in the place of the usual 3 language menus). I think they were
in the general field of language, but not about a particular language.

73: You click on the pencil to get the full editing screen (sounds like you already do that). When you get down to the language section, there is a blue link that says "see all languages" under each language box. Clink that and you get a drop box with all the languages LT recognizes in alphabetical order. Scroll down until you get to the one you want and click it.

There are some eccentricities. Like I think Old English is under O but Middle English is under E (English, Middle). And some of the more obscure languages are grouped together (like Souixian, Other) -- that comes from the MARC coding not LT. You also have to know the modern terms for the Native American languages (Blackfoot isn't Blackfoot anymore, if I remember correctly), but I've been able to find those on Wikipedia. If you still work in a library or have a friend who does, you can look up the current name using the cross-referencing system in the MARC codes book.

Hope this helps!

The same "show all languages" link shows up in the box if you double-click a language field in the catalog.

I'd like to select multiple touchstones mentioned in one thread and tap a button once to place them all on my Wishlist. Tick boxes and a button in the touchstone panel may do the trick.

If I had to pick one wish for an improvement to Add Books, it would be consistent encoding of non-ASCII characters. This manifests itself in the differing URLS for authors with names such as Müller, but it comes from how the data is imported from sources that encode it differently. The source's encoding should be recognized and translated to a consistent scheme within LibraryThing's database.

a way to set the preferred "physical measurements" across the site. And thus in Add Books Manually. I don't use inches, and it takes quite some effort to estimate how large something is based on inches.
The fact that it doesn't even change when I'm on the .nl site is mindboggling.

Generic Editions, with a flag saying it's a generic edition. Perhaps only permissible when adding from a source, so the title actually exists.

Suggestion based on typo's and misspellings, perhaps based on the Author includes. Trry Prtchett - Did you mean Terry Pratchett ? Yes - No.

Beating a dead horse, I suspect, but, if I find the exact book in an LTer's catalog, I want to be able to add that entry, with all of it's non-personal information, directly to my catalog. Why should I search Amazon, etc., for something close and then edit most of the fields? It used to work this way, and I was quite happy. About half of my collection from the Folio Society was added this way, and it was quick, easy, and quite a bit more accurate than Amazon.

Os.

>78 by JerryMmm, You know you can just choose "convert to cm/kg" and/or choose the "cm" rather than "in" option when putting in your own numbers, right? I'm an American in Europe and I've actually been measuring all (well, the few I've actually measured so far) of mine in cm because it's so much simpler to get a proper decimal number, plus my foot-long ruler only has cm on it ;)

78, 80,

Perhaps the issue is the default of English vs. Metric. I would prefer to be able to set a default for my account so that Metric units are shown on existing data and blank forms. Having to remember to click this or change the individual drop downs is tedious.

For a non U.S. LT page, it is easy to understand why Metric would be expected to be the default.

If I'm going to pull out the digital scale, it is far easier to deal with the gram output (and move the decimal over three for the kg). Using pounds plus ounces does not work well with the decimal pounds needed for LT. Similarly, I prefer to measure in cm or mm for the dimensions rather than inches and fractions. Don't make me pull out a calculator for each entry.

James

Keeline, I agree. Since moving over here I've tried to "go native" on many things, but my natural inclination is still to in/lb, however, due to the abundantly higher ease with which these measurements can be done in metric, metric is definitely my preferred method.

>80 .Monkey.:, 81

I measure books printed in the US in English; in the UK in metric. This tends to get a "proper decimal number", as PolymathicMonkey calls it. Being an engineer, I have both a decimal metric rule, and a decimal English rule. I suspect most folks don't have a decimal English ruler around the house.

Os.

Tenths of inches? No, I've never even seen one. I have rulers that go down to 16ths of an inch...but yeah, entering those as decimal fractions is not fun. Which is one reason I've never bothered much with the physical measurements. Still, I agree it would be good if LT would remember a user's preference for measurement mode and keep it that way always (wouldn't make a difference to you, Osbaldistone, since you switch, but to those who use one method it would be very helpful).

I enter everything in metric for accuracy, then convert to imperial because it means more to me. I grew up in the period when Canada was switching from imperial to metric, so I tend to think in a mix of both.

>84 jjmcgaffey: Exactly, stupid 8ths and 16ths of an inch, who the heck thought that was a good system?! lol. Yeah, a default setting would be nice.

>84 jjmcgaffey:
An architect's rule (used for measuring scale drawings, usually of rooms and buildings) is a multi-scaled rule with increments in inches and 8ths, 12ths, 16ths, or even finer. The scales allow one to read feet and inches directly off of a drawing where 3 inches (on the drawing) = 1 foot (in the real world), 1 inch = 1 foot, 1/4 inch = 1 foot, 1/8=1 foot, etc.

However, an engineer's rule (used for scale drawings for generally large area things like parking lots, land development, airports, highways, etc.) has scales in decimal increments. Thus the scales would be 1 inch (on the drawing) = 10 feet (in the real world), 1 in = 20 feet, 1 in = 30 feet, etc. The 1=10 scale works well for decimal feet because each actual inch (being used to represent 10 feet, or 100, 1000, etc) is divided into ten increments, one for each scaled foot (or 10 feet, or 100 feet, etc) on the drawing.

These often come as triangular rules to provide multiple scales - usually six different scales(image here: http://www.amazon.com/12-Triangular-Scale-Ruler-Engineer/dp/B0084RVWE4)

More than you needed to know, but that's where it comes from.

Os.

Edited to get the engineer's scale types right.

>87 Osbaldistone: Ah that makes perfect sense, and is handy to know. :)

>88 .Monkey.:
Well, it may have made perfect sense, but I got the engineer's scales listed wrong. I've corrected the post.

Os.

Being able to add a book from LibraryThing itself, rather than having to go search Amazon or something- which sometimes brings up several similar copies of the same work, without the covers/ISBN showing until you add them- but selecting the right one is EASY from within LT, when another account has already listed it! It would also help when adding rare books to multiple account- I have a private account (what I'm reading now) and a library account (to catalogue all of my books). Some of the same books in both categories are VERY RARE and aren't listed on any of the search sources- BUT I can add them and their data from where I've already listed them on the other account(s).

If I have to repeatedly copy and paste the full, unicode-laden info, bit by bit, for listing a book on medieval Japanese textile weaving and historical costume, ONE MORE TIME. x___x ARGH!

We need to be able to add from books already on LT- which is what the "add this book" button SHOULD to from the start- at least as a drop-down option.

Seriously, it's the only option (besides decent import/export files) I actually want. TT_TT

>90 snowby:
I agree. One should be able to look at a member's catalogue, find the same book, verify that the information is (mostly) correct, add that book to one's own catalogue, then modify as necessary. Many common publishers do not use ISBN (Folio Society, Franklin Library, Easton Press, Heritage Press, not to mention the hundreds of pre-ISBN books in my catalogue), and those of us who collect these books are left hoping for a decent entry on Amazon, or are left with the manual entry of hundreds of books, when we know others LT who have already done the job, including images. Even with the ISBN, Amazon data is no more reliable than what's already on LT most of the time.

This is, BTW, the way it worked when I first joined LT. Luckily, I got most of my Easton Press, Franklin Library, and Folio Society books entered while I could capture the entries from other LTers. If not, I might never have stuck with the task.

Os.

>90 snowby:/91 It would definitely be nice, but in the meantime you can still use brightcopy's book-copying script to copy over most of the info for you.

>92 .Monkey.:
brightcopy's script?

Os.

*BAMPH*

http://www.librarything.com/topic/115928

*realizes he is out of flash powder and awkwardly backs out of the room*

> 91

those of us who collect these books are left hoping for a decent entry on Amazon, or are left with the manual entry of hundreds of books,

That's a false choice. Try some of the 700 other data sources. I found most of my Folio Society, Heritage Press and other limited edition or fine press books using the Library of Congress or other libraries.

>94 brightcopy:
Followed the link; clicked 'download'; clicked run/continue each time; got the 'congratulations' message.

Now, the details page of a book not in my library has 'add book' and 'add to wishlist' buttons that look exactly like (and are located exactly the same) as the 'work' page, but they also function exactly the same - they take me to the 'add book' page with the book title entered into the search field, and run the default 'Amazon' search.

What am I missing?

s.

>96 Osbaldistone: You have to be on a book details page, not a work page. There's a second set of buttons, use those instead.

I've probably posted this before in this group, but maybe there's a bit more sympathy this time around for (A), UPCs (Universal Price Codes) to be used as ISBNs ar currently, (B) more options under Author/Contributo, etc drop-down, at the very least Director, Producer, and Conductor, and (C) abolish the (to me) incomprehensible disruption caused by the presence (or absence) of hypens and square brackets. Peace to all. This is an important topic; I only wish we'd hear from more participants, and not just The Usual Suspects (among whom, of-course, I find myself -- sigh)

>97 .Monkey.:
As I said, the details page of a book not in my library has 'add book' and 'add to wishlist' buttons that look exactly like (and are located exactly the same) as the 'work' page. And, they work the same as those on the 'work page'. I see no second set of buttons. I suspect the install is not working, but I get no error message when I run it. I'm using Internet Explorer 8.

Here's what I'm seeing (not sure why it's blurry):


Thanks,
s

Ah I don't know that you can use it on IE. It works in Fx (using Greasemonkey) and in Chrome.

Yeah, IE support for GM is terrible and I finally gave up on trying to test my scripts there. They should work fine on Chrome (using TamperMonkey - not the built-in GM support), though. Sorry. :(

>100 .Monkey.:, 101
Okay. More push to Chrome. Perhaps it's time.

s

Just make sure you install TamperMonkey. Chrome has built-in GM support but it was lacking the last time I looked into it.

I can say that I use TamperMonkey in Chrome with brightcopy's scripts, and they work a treat. I've never had a problem with any instability or wonkiness.

Installed in Chrome - works just fine. Thanks

s

Of course, then I got and update it. Minor touches but just thought I'd mention it in case anyone wanted to update to the new version.

Mainly, it just changes "Add to library/wishlist" to "Copy to library/wishlist" (r.orrison's suggestion). Makes it a little more distinct from LT's built-in buttons. It also makes it work over https if that's your bag.

>106 brightcopy:
Got it. Thanks

>106 brightcopy: Ah that's a good change, lol. Second set of identical buttons is a tad confusing :P

Well, when I first created it, only my buttons were on that screen. ;)

I would like to see a way to add books that uses the computer's camera (or iPhone or iPad or any other kind of smart phone, tablet that has a camera). I know it is possible to use Red Laser etc and email the file and cut and paste in the import. But why not have something akin to Goodreads in which one can add directly from the device? I would also like a "Suggested Retail Price" or "Price" field (and it would be super nice to have the option of selecting the price source--Amazon or whomever--and to have that information automatically filled in). And it would also be nice to have the ability to have the ability to automatically add a tag until we decide to quit using that tag. I like to tag my books with the year in which I received them, which means that I would like to automatically add 2013 to every book I enter this year. This last suggestion probably will not be a priority item, but I am just putting out a personal wish list. The ability to add books directly from my phone or iPad, however, is one that I see as having more universal appeal (and this IS something that we can do already with Good Reads).

110>

The RL Classic and LT Catalog apps for iOS don't require copy-paste. I've used RL most but you can scan a stack of similar books. Next email the list to yourself. The email contains a text attachment that will work with the LT universal import. As you are uploading the file you can set the collection(s) and tag(s).

LT does not expose an API for adding books so it is hard for an app developer to add such a feature without a big performance hit from screen scraping, etc.

James

In reference to >6 MarthaJeanne:

Just added: https://www.librarything.com/topic/195618. :)

Yes/agree to:
>37 geitebukkeskjegg:
>68 Riverbank:
>81 Keeline:
>86 .Monkey.:

and most important to me:
>79 Osbaldistone:
>79 Osbaldistone:
>79 Osbaldistone: ...

>112 kristilabrie: Yes! I noticed.